Alright, so after dealing with IRL business for a few months, it's finally time to start building my new PC and getting back into gaming. I have done substantial research on most of the hardware components for the PC build. Currently I'm at the point where I've looked at the available options for 120 Hz LCD monitors and am browsing the local community boards for CRT monitors on sale/being donated. My last good CRT from several years ago was found being thrown out at my university shipping docks...

However, I am looking for additional input about monitors and hoping some sagely Euros would be willing to contribute (I already know Meb is biased towards CRTs).

Reading up on a 2008 thread on 120Hz LCDs (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=960548) introduced me to the problems of the sample-and-hold display style with all LCD screens. This effect contributes to 70% of motion blur with LCD screens, whereas response time is the other 30% and isn't very significant these days anyway with 2ms response times. I would think that even at 120Hz you'd get plenty of visible movement blur for FPS games that require any significant wrist action. I doubt there have been any significant changes with the newer 120Hz LCDs over 2 years (unless I missed manufacturers implementing some kind of effective technology to introduce rapid flicker into LCD displays).

Thus, as far as I know, CRTs perform better than true 120Hz LCD monitors, and any LCD monitors in general at this point. I know CRTs are also cheaper than 120Hz LCDs these days, the latter of which runs anywhere from ~$150 (~€88) for 22" and upwards and beyond $500 (~€355) for 23.5-24" screens. I don't really care for larger monitors at this point. On the other hand, CRTs take up a lot of desk space. The good CRTs are difficult to find these days. Finally, thinking long term, frying my eyes daily for 2+ hours with CRT radiation at 100+Hz probably isn't a great idea as I continue to age.

My current opinion on the matter is that it would be good to have a functional 100+Hz CRT monitor for competitive matches only while using a 120Hz LCD monitor would suffice for casual gaming.

So, here are the questions that I hope some of you can answer and perhaps update your views from the previous thread in this forum:

How much of a difference is there for competitive gaming performance of players who have experience playing on 100+Hz CRTs versus 120Hz LCDs in FPS games? Who here with appreciable skill still uses CRTs and who in this group is happy with their 120Hz LCDs?

Also, what types of 120Hz LCD monitors are some of you using and are you happy with them? I am aware of the ones on this site: http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-requirements.html
including of course the Samsung 2233RZ, ViewSonic VX2268WM, BenQ XL2410T, LG 2363LD, and the Acer GD245HQ.

I have 3D vision ready GFX and screen (2233rz) but I don't have 3D glasses and I'm not planning to get one.

There's still quite a difference between LCD and CRT, atleast my 120hz and CRT. But I'm not planning on getting a CRT. If there was money involved in gaming, yeah maybe, but I dont play games (including NS) that seriously anymore. LCD is great for other things, and CRT's take so much space.

It also kind of depends on what kind of games do you play. Lerk for example in NS has so much much view movement that <120hz LCD's just can't keep up. Generally in terms of view movement and speed, NS is definitely at the top. This is not a case with the most modern FPS (?).

actinium

Finally, thinking long term, frying my eyes daily for 2+ hours with CRT radiation at 100+Hz probably isn't a great idea as I continue to age.

Yeah this is a good reason not to get one because CRT radiation is actually ionizing (can cause cancer or other health problems). Its at low levels (its not chernobyl :) but long-term exposure could cause some harm.

I just quickly calculated, the exposure from CRT is almost always below 0.5 mR per hr. To give an upper bound, 1000 hrs per year (this might be a lot more if you do other than gaming on your PC, like work) equals about 500 mR per year which is 2.5 times the normal background radiation. I just got that Röntgen number from Wikipedia which says its an upper bound, meaning most CRT's might be a lot less than that. If you worked on CRT say, 8+hrs and even played 1hr, an upper bound would be like 1500 mR. That is a very rough number with quite some assumptions (ie. equivalent dose does not equal absorbed dose)

I go from incredible to absolutely godlike when I make the switch to CRT. It's a chore to use any LCD, 120Hz or otherwise, when playing NS.

Tweadle godlike? WHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. How dare you? You're fucking BAD?!

If you don't own a 100Hz CRT with good resolution, the best you can get is a 120Hz LCD. I tried 100Hz on a CRT once and it was epic, but the comfort given by a LCD 120Hz, with better resolution, bigger, better color managing and stuff, overcomes the CRT significantly.

I'm myope and already fucked up in the eyes, I don't want to grow a cancer in my brain so fuck CRT.

I have the Viewsonic VX2268WM and it's the best buy I've done in years.

I doubt anyone has bought 120Hz LED monitor? Its quite new technology and I would like to know if it fixed any LCD's problems. At least last time I googled there wasn't any good discussions about the matter.

I've got the 2233rz as well. Like dugi said, the resolution, colour and all that outweighs the smoothness given by a crt. I've tried using a crt since and just got pissed off that I couldn't see things as easily. It was smooth as fuck and all that but I actually enjoy my lcd more now.

vartija, are you talking about the current LED monitors that are pretty much LCDs that are made brighter with LED backlighting? The only other technology I'm aware of that could have improvements over LCDs would be OLED which is still a ways off before monitors will be available for retail sale.

Ok, this is good feedback so far. Currently with true 120Hz LCD monitors, I am looking at a jump of ~$150 (~€107) between the 2268WM (22", 3ms response time) to the best of the current 23.5", 2ms response time monitors. Is the 1.5" and 1 ms improvement worth the price difference? Then there is the new Samsung 27" 2ms monitor (Samsung S27A950D) for almost $700 presently - it's probably something I will keep an eye on as it's price drops, especially since backlight bleed becomes more and more irritating with larger LCD screen size. Thus, it's presently a choice between 22" and 23", 2ms vs 3ms. (I'm looking specifically at the Viewsonic 2268WM vs the Asus VG236H, since the 2233RZ is ridiculously overpriced in Canada for whatever reason.)

There is LED backlighting and there is RGB LED backlighting, the latter is the better with a higher color volumina as well as better color accuracy.

i got the Acer GD245HQ and its nice. cannot compare to crt, but way better than low-hz tft's

find out what LCD models are popular among the pro QL players and you'll find what you're searching for

As jiriki said, it all comes down to circumstance. If by chance you end up playing Dota 2 hat simulator for two years on an 120hz, you've wasted your money. There are no FPS games that justify the radiation bath of the superior, glorious CRT race. Good FPS games are either dead or full of dirty Europeans.

hopefully Tribes: Ascend isn't a piece of shit. we're holding our breath on that one

lmao it is free to play. So you have to pay to get better gear. Fuck that. TF2 in disguise.

well if i have to pay, i at least want a pink tutu with a hello kitty symbol on it while i rape the free2playkiddies.
suiciderates would skyrocket amongst the 13year-olds XD